marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Avengers (Doctor Doom's) (Earth-616)
Samantha Parrington vs. Brunnhilde Valkyrie *There are two Valkyries, Samantha Parrington (Sam) and Brunnhilde (Val). *Both Valkyries were alive and active prior to AXIS. *The Valkyries are identical *Doom's Valkyrie is not identified at any time as Sam or Val. *Val was unavailable for recruitment during AXIS. *There's no reason why this Valkyrie couldn't be Sam, but there is reason why it couldn't be Val. ID'ing Doom's Valkyrie as Sam is supported by canon and the continuity of the AXIS story itself. Doing so does not contradict anything from the comics. ID'ing Doom's Valkyrie as Brunnhilde DOES contradict the AXIS comics -- it preserves a significant continuity error solely in the name of presumed author intent. Doom's Valkyrie should be ID'ed as Sam on the wiki. Monolith616 (talk) 14:22, February 4, 2015 (UTC) :: It was confirmed in the recent handbook Avengers NOW! #1 that came out. In the Avengers members update which is overseen by SVP Tom Brevoort. It's Brunnhilde. Gijimu (talk) 20:01, February 4, 2015 (UTC) :::Like I stated previously: There's no need to try to explain it in ways it would just represent misinformation. If Samantha Parrington wasn't the Valkyrie shown in Avengers Worlds, she simply wasn't. :::We can't try to explain every continuity error, we shouldn't. As Tom Brevoort put it, "Sounds like what Stan Lee would have called a 'goof.'" ::::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 20:20, February 4, 2015 (UTC) ::::How am I representing misinformation ADour, the handbook is canon brunnhilde could of helped Doom in Avengers World since it was only 2 issues and still have time to be in Axis #5 maybe those issues took place before axis #5. Just trying to let Monolith616 know that but to no avail. But it is not misinformation it is factual. Don't you have the handbook? - Gijimu (talk) 02:30, February 5, 2015 (UTC) :::::Not you, I was talking to Monolith616. ::::::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:50, February 5, 2015 (UTC) It cannot have taken place before Axis #5, gijimu, because the entire point of the story is that it took place AFTER Axis #5, when the non-inverted heroes were missing, and these heroes were the only ones left available for assembling. Shame the Handbook doubled down on the continuity error, though -- this should've been an easy fix. Monolith616 (talk) 13:11, February 5, 2015 (UTC) ::My fault ADour. I thought it was directed at me. Anyways Monolith616 when you do changes like that its good to use references to make sure you have accurate info. Just a friendly suggestion. :: --Gijimu (talk) 19:24, February 5, 2015 (UTC) ::::I did use references. I referenced the actual comics under discussion, which supported my thesis. I don't consider Handbooks to be primary sources of information, since they are typically not published as in-continuity material, and at best reflect author intent as opposed to what was actually published on-panel. And a continuity error isn't any less of an error just because a Handbook repeats it. I recognize that's a minority opinion online, though, so I won't belabor the point. Monolith616 (talk) 19:55, February 5, 2015 (UTC) :::::What do you mean by "they are typically not published as in-continuity material"? The Handbooks don't reflect the author's intent, they always depict events in a comic book as they happened on-panel. As an example, the Ultimate Marvel Handbook was published before Ultimates 2 ended, and they depicted Black Widow's betrayal on her profile, but as her motivations had yet not been revealed, they just stated what had been seen on-panel so far. They didn't even state her to be evil, they just stated that he had betrayed them for some unknown reason. :::::I don't know what handbooks are you talking about. But they are not biased. :::::Unless Marvel tries to correct themselves and establish that Valkyrie was not Brunnhilde, that Valkyrie was Brunnhilde. You don't need to go around trying to fix mistakes and write articles using your interpretation. ::::::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 22:29, February 5, 2015 (UTC) ::::::*Scratches head* I never said they were biased. Not sure where you got that -- I said they're not in-continuity. They're reference books, and as reference books sometimes they don't match what's printed in the comics, or they add new information that was not printed in the original comics. The original OHOTMU of the 80's gave names to Squadron Supreme members Whizzer, Power Princess and Blue Eagle that ultimately were ignored in the Squadron Supreme series in favor of different names. The first OHOTMU and the Deluxe Edition went back and forth on whether Basilisk had the ability to teleport, or just some power that resembled teleportation. The Marvel Encyclopedia and modern OHOTMUs changed their minds about if the Acolyte Delgado was the SHIELD agent Harry Delgado, or some other character named Marco Delgado. At one point, the X-Men Handbooks claimed Artie and Leech were New Mutants, but later reversed this opinion. And one OHOTMU tried to explain Xorn's behavior pretending to be Magneto by saying Wanda did it. ::::::I could go on and on like this, but the point is that none of the stuff above was referenced in actual, in-continuity Marvel comics -- it all originated from the Handbooks. So, I treat Handbooks as secondary canon. Any new information they have is fine, so long as it doesn't contradict what's from the in-continuity titles. If the OHOTMU says Whizzer's real name is Hiram Arnold, but the Squadron Supreme series only ever called him Stanley Stewart, I don't think there's a continuity error or that the Whizzer has two names. The OHOTMU was written with preliminary information that ultimately wasn't used for the comic itself, so the OHOTMU is ignored as secondary canon in favor of the actual comics, the primary canon. ::::::As far as Valkyrie goes, nothing published in Avengers World #15-16 established that she was Brunnhilde and not Samantha Parrington. And since Sam was available at that time and Val wasn't, it just makes sense that the Valkyrie was Sam. So as far as I'm concerned, primary canon lends to the conclusion that Sam = Valkyrie. But you say the Handbook says otherwise. Well, I think the Handbook got it wrong, and what's reflected in the primary canon should lead. I get that not everyone agrees with that interpretation of comics vs. handbooks. I won't try to change this Valkyrie to Sam anymore. But I do disagree with the notion that Handbooks should lead in discussions like this. It's the tail wagging the dog effect. Monolith616 (talk) 23:42, February 5, 2015 (UTC) :::::::I got it from you saying that "and at best reflect author intent as opposed to what was actually published on-panel." That would mean they take a biased interpretation on the events (the writer's) instead of just what was. :::::::Even if the Handbooks can be wrong (you forgot to mention Cyclops's eyes being portals to a dimension his eye beams come from, that's a hilariously far-fetched explanation), the fact that they sometimes provide an extensive insight to the Marvel Universe doesn't make them invalid. Marvel Handbooks have improved over the years in terms of contradictions with the on-panel information. :::::::Even if the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Valkyrie in Avengers World is not Brunnhilde (the conclusion that it's Sam is an extension of this conclusion, with no proof on its own), it has been implied by Tom Brevoort that the Valkyrie was indeed Brunnhilde, for a reason he mentioned her appearance being a "goof." :::::::Additionally, our wiki was created by its founder under the principle as acting as a digitalized form of the Handbooks, for which the Handbooks represent the superior source of information. :::::::Finally, like I already said, there's no need to scratch our heads trying to find a solution for every single continuity mistake, and ending up solving conflict of information with misinformation. :::::::In conclusion: Valkyrie should be not identified as Sam Parrington because she wasn't identified as such in any way, and two sources from Marvel (Handbook and senior editor) stated she was meant to be Brunnhilde. I can even reach out Avengers World writer Nick Spencer and get his word on the matter. ::::::::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 00:06, February 6, 2015 (UTC) :::::::: Man I didn't expect this to get to get hashed out this far. As far as in-continuity with both Avengers World #15 and #16, if I'm right unless someone can explain it otherwise is that the sword Dragonfang was in both issues and the last time the sword was seen was with Brunnhilde, like it was when she appeared With the Black Knight in S.H.I.E.L.D. Vol 3 #1. So it can come down to a process of elimination, that it is Brunnhilde. ::::::::: -- Gijimu (talk) 03:41, February 6, 2015 (UTC) @Gijimu: Doom's Valkyrie has a sword that looks like the swords both Sam and Val have carried in the past. Although it resembles Dragonfang, that sword is traditionally golden while this sword was black. @Adour: Once again, you're hearing words I didn't say. I never said the Handbooks were invalid -- I said they were secondary. What happens in the comics, "in-universe", comes first; anything that is not in-universe (interviews, author's twitter accounts, Handbooks) may add to what's in the comics, or clarify what's in the comics, but if a secondary source contradicts what's in the comics, then the in-universe source trumps the out-of-universe one. And if there are two identical characters, A and B, and one of the two appears in a comic, and continuity is clear that Character 'A' COULD NOT have been present, then it must've been Character 'B'. A secondary source that still insists it was Character 'A', while acknowledging this is impossible, should be ignored. I understand that is not the policy of this wiki. I get that. As I've already said, I won't try to change it to Sam anymore. But supporting an admitted continuity error because it was repeated in a Handbook instead of a valid interpretation of the scene based on what's actually in the comics just seems wrongheaded to me. And being told I don't have "accurate info" because the only "references" I used were the actual comics where the events we're discussing happened is absurd. It's like questioning someone who was AT the Super Bowl if they REALLY know the final score of the game when they didn't watch ESPN's post-game coverage. Monolith616 (talk) 02:43, February 8, 2015 (UTC) :You've made it seem as if you believed the handbooks were invalid, maybe you want to express yourself better, even in this last reply you used the words "valid interpretation" in order to contrast the Handbooks. And you're still wrongfully jumping at conclusions. And it makes less sense to ignore a source that states it was Character 'A' only because it's not useful for your argument. :It's not because "it's our policy." Here's why you just can't list that Valkyrie was Sam: Like I've already mentioned, the only conclusion you can rightfully jump at is that the Vaklyrie couldn't have been Brunnhilde. The only fact evidenced is that Character 'A' COULD NOT have been present. Stating it was Character 'B' with no actual basis ignoring the possibility of Characters 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F' (and so on) is not proper. It makes as much sense that it's Sam as if it was a Skrull, or a Brunnhilde from Earth-721 visiting Earth-616. And according to Marvel, the third option is 100% possible. :Why would the Handbook be an invalid interpretation? The Avengers NOW! Handbook was the interpretation of the scene based on what's actually in the comic. In the comic it appeared to be Brunnhilde, thus the Handbook stated it was Brunnhilde. :And you still have no accurate info. Like I've mentioned messages above and in this very same reply: You only have evidence that it wasn't Brunnhilde, not that it was Sam Parrington. You're not using the actual comics where the events we're discussing happened to justify is Parrington. And two paragraphs above is the explanation on why your way of acting is the absurd one. :To continue this analogy, what you're doing is like questioning someone who was AT the Super Bowl if they REALLY know the final score of the game and they just tell you it wasn't a draw. What you're doing, is basically jumping at the conclusion that just because it wasn't a draw, Team 1 won. When Team 2 could also have won. ::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 03:56, February 8, 2015 (UTC) :::No, the analogy is you know Team 1 didn't win the Super Bowl. You ask someone what the final score of the Super Bowl was, and they tell you Team 1 won, which is the only thing you KNOW FOR CERTAIN did not happen. :::As for your continued confusion over my argument on the Handbook's validity, try this: I believe the Handbook in general is a secondary source, to be followed only when it doesn't contradict in-universe comics, the primary material. Therefore, I believe the Handbook in this particular instance is invalid, because ID'ing the Valkyrie as Brunnhilde contradicts the primary sources. :::The problem with your reasoning is, taken to its logical conclusion, you end up invalidating a good percentage of this website. You say I CAN'T say Valkyrie was Sam because it could've been a Skrull, an Earth-A double, or something else altogether. On the other hand, you CAN say the Valkyrie was Brunnhilde because the Handbook told you so. Well then, what about every character or story referenced on this website that's not referenced in a Handbook? :::When this week's X-Men Vol 4 comes out, someone will make a character list for this site that'll include Ororo Munroe (Earth-616), Jubilation Lee (Earth-616), etc. But, according to you, they can't do that because they can't say for sure the characters in that book aren't Skrulls, Earth-A doubles, or otherwise, and there's no Handbook covering the events of that issue, so you can't use that for confirmation. And the Handbook would have to specifically confirm their presence on every page of that issue because, as you put it, it's 100% possible a character was swapped out with a double between panels of a title, ala Mockingbird-Skrull or Viper-Space Phantom. :::Wrong. I mean, obviously wrong. Common sense and context have to be referenced in order to support a website like this, otherwise we all become philosophy majors and no one can actually know anything. If Wildstreak appears in an issue of Fantastic Four, because the FF sent out a call for all their friends and allies to come help save the world, you can assume it's the original Wildstreak. On the other hand, if Wildstreak appears in an issue of Axis: Hobgoblin, standing among Kingsley's mass-produced hero knock-offs, you can assume it's a new Wildstreak. Why? Context. Even if her real name or history were never explicitly addressed, you use the clues in the issue to make a reasonable inference. Is this character interacting with veteran heroes like she knows them? Is this character surrounded by other known stand-in/replacement heroes? And, in the same vein, Is one version of this character '''physically incapable of being present' for this story?'' :::There are two known versions of Valkyrie operating in Earth-616. One of the two is present. One of the two can't be present. Ipso facto, ergo, Occam's razor...it's the other one. :::The above conclusion is logical, it's reasonable, it does nothing to contradict the comics it refers to...but you can't accept it because the Handbook presented a different, yet invalid, conclusion. Why can I call it invalid? Because you yourself have quoted Tom Brevoort in this thread calling it a "goof". Marvel acknowledges Brunnhilde couldn't be there, but you're defending that she was. I mean, you get that, right? You're defending something you've already admitted is wrong! And it's because, to you, supporting the Handbook as a reference source is more important than having comics that make sense. And that's where our views on this subject will always diverge. Monolith616 (talk) 18:45, February 9, 2015 (UTC) ::::I understand that. But you're still aplying incorrectly. You know Team 1 didn't won, and you're told Team 1 won. However, Team 2 could've won or it could've ended in draw. Like I already mentioned: You're basically just saying that because Team 1 didn't won, Team 2 won. When it could've ended in draw. ::::Thanks for making yourself clear this time. However, how does the Handbook contradict the primary source? The primary source shows us a Valkyrie who looks exactly like Brunnhilde, sporting Brunnhilde's own sword. The Handbook mentions being Brunhilde. You're bringing up the wrong contradiction. The contradiction is not between the Handbook and Avengers World, but between Avengers World and Avengers & X-Men: AXIS. ::::My reasoning has no problems because 1) The Skrull/Earth-A/Duplicate analogy is meant for a similar situation in which we're present before a continuity error, you're being utterly ridiculous by hypothesizing its implementation for every single appearance. 2) It's to show you how nonsensical would it be to try to solve every continuity error your way when there are numerous other different options, considering even one of them was explicitly made to fix any continuity errors from past, present, and future. ::::You talk about a need of context, when there's none in Avengers World to support the idea it's Parrington. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the word "logical" and "reasonable" or use as many synonyms of "thus," you're conclusion is missing a big step from "It's not Valkyrie" to "It's Sam Perrington." ::::And it's not that we're not accepting it because the Handbook presented a different one, it's because it makes barely any sense. I'm not "defending something you've already admitted is wrong." I'm against something that is not right. Which is your conclusion. Your conclusion has no support from facts, you can't call a conclusion something based off a theory. ::::I'm not saying "It's Brunnhilde because the Handbook and Tom Brevoort said it." I'm saying it's Brunnhilde because it was meant to be. It would even make more sense to pretend Valkyrie wasn't in that one-panel appearance in Avengers & X-Men: AXIS instead of rummaging for an answer. ::::If you can't just accept a continuity error as such, you'd better stay away from the Ultimate Universe, or 80% of Iron Man's guest appearances, drawn using an outdated armor or one from even a different universe. ::::In conclusion, we can't work with assumptions. Even if it would be better to assume it was Sam Perrington, we can't because it's not a fact actually supported and/or established by Marvel. We have to work using facts. In order to mantain a balanced community and trustworthy, we have to work with that. We can't just go around stating it was Sam while Marvel states it was Valkyrie, as well as different other sites. We have to avoid contradictions and misinformation. Stating it was Sam Perrington would be not doing that. :::::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:22, February 9, 2015 (UTC) (1) I already have a long list of reasons to stay away from the Ultimate Universe, but I'm always happy to add to it. (2) One more shot at the Super Bowl analogy. You're a reporter. You know Team 1 did not win. You need to find out what did happen. You get a quote from someone in authority who tells you Team 1 won. You know that's not true, but you run the quote anyway because you don't have any other information. That's bad reporting. Very bad. (3) I'm not focusing on the wrong contradiction because there is no contradiction between AXIS and Avengers World. At no time in those issues does anyone claim the AW Valkyrie IS Brunnhilde. That WOULD be a contradiction, but it didn't happen. And because there are multiple known identical Valkyries running around the Marvel Universe, just having Valkyrie in AW when AXIS says Brunnhilde cannot be there is not a contradiction. The contradiction only comes when the Handbook NAMES the AW Valkyrie as the one Valkyrie established by continuity CANNOT be there. There was no contradiction in-universe until the Handbook made one. The only contradiction was the out-of-universe author intent that Spencer meant for it to be Brunnhilde. (4) And yes, with everything you say and every point you make, you ARE saying "It's Brunnhilde because the Handbook and Tom Brevoort said it." You have defined this argument by the question "Official sources say it was Brunnhilde, but can Monolith616 effectively argue otherwise?" You start with a conclusion that I must dispute to your satisfaction. I, however, have always defined this argument by the question "Who is this Valkyrie? What does the evidence show?" You say there's no evidence that this Valkyrie was Sam Parrington? It looked like her, talked like her, fought like her, and the only other known identical character was unavailable. What you really mean is there's nothing in AW that specifically contradicts the Handbook saying it was Brunnhilde. And as long as the Handbook isn't specifically contradicted, you're going to follow it even when it admits what it's reporting is a continuity error. And that's why we can go no further with this. You rely out out-of-universe information as your guiding star, while I rely on in-universe information. I only listen to Handbooks and interviews when they don't contradict the comics, you always listen to Handbooks and interviews unless something in the comics forces you not to. We each prioritize an entirely different source of reference than the other person. Like science trying to dispute faith...there's just no winning here. Monolith616 (talk) 16:55, February 12, 2015 (UTC) :2) The analogy falls short because what you said would actually apply if Tom Brevoort or the Handbook had told us Forbush Man appeared in Avengers World. The thing is that Team 1 did won the match, the same way Brunnhilde did appear in Avengers World. :3) The contradiction is still between AXIS and Avengers World. Because even if it's only explicit that the author indended for her to be Brunnhilde, for a reason the artist drew her as Brunnhilde with the Dragonfang. With the exact same appearance Brunnhilde had in Fearless Defenders. You're taking this "it's not Burnnhilde" to an extreme stretch. :4) Even if you ask yourself "Who is this Valkyrie? What does the evidence show?" you end up in the wrong conclusion. The only logical conclusion you can get at is that "It's not Brunnhilde." The conclusion that is Sam Perrington is pure speculation. And a site which is supposed to be as profession as possible can't rely on speculations, no matter how sense they make or do not make. :Exactly, it's like science against faith. If science can't explain something, scientists don't try to push it forward with no solid proof. Scientists don't try to pass something as a fact just becuase it somewhat makes sense. ::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 19:29, February 12, 2015 (UTC) Monolith616, Marvel staff admitted the error and confirmed by the way it was Brunnhilde and that there was a contradiction. And even if there is a contradiction that would be nice to solve, and your theory is interesting and could solve the deal, it isn't, because it is an unofficial theory (resolving the case) vs. official confirmations (that creates/confirm an error). You want things to change ? Go ask an editor, an author or an handbook writer, and propose your theory. Maybe you'll end up with your theory confirmed by Tom Brevoort or another one, and you will have a No-Prize Win ? And then your theory will be both valid and usable. On the other matter, the hierarchy of sources: * Comics>Handbooks>Interviews isn't that clever. Handbooks can clarify comics, interviews correct comics, twitter/tumblr's messages correct or clarify comics or handbooks. It's like jurisprudence material in court. * There there is no mention of Sam anywhere in the comics, so we takes the next sources who states "Brunnhilde" and never "Sam". End of the question, even if it is stupid to pass on such occasion to take away an error continuity by using that aspect of the two characters being identical. There is nothing else to say. Undoniel (talk) 12:13, February 13, 2015 (UTC)